"Fewer, but Better:" Voter supression trumpeted in National Review

[donquixote99]

There's no denying that suppression is the goal now.

This National Review writer points out that voters "got us into this mess." Logically, he should advocate doing away with voting altogether, but they want to keep the illusion of democracy, I guess.

I will leave the calculus of who benefits, and who pays, under an 'elitist' regime, to the reader....

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-fewer-voters/


PS: Historical note: the phrase 'Fewer, but Better,' which indeed is used by the National Review writer, originates in a famous essay penned by Vladimir Lenin in the early days of the Soviet Union.

[Reason10]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There's no denying that suppression is the goal now.

This National Review writer points out that voters "got us into this mess." Logically, he should advocate doing away with voting altogether, but they want to keep the illusion of democracy, I guess.

I will leave the calculus of who benefits, and who pays, under an 'elitist' regime, to the reader....

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-fewer-voters/


PS: Historical note: the phrase 'Fewer, but Better,' which indeed is used by the National Review writer, originates in a famous essay penned by Vladimir Lenin in the early days of the Soviet Union.

You MORON.

That is an editorial.

Explain which RACES you think are inferior and would not be considered "fewer but better."

In the REAL WORLD, of educated workers and taxpayers, we WANT fewer votes. We want the voter pool dialed down to where ONLY REGISTERED VOTERS WHO ARE IN THIS COUNTRY LEGALLY AND ARE CITIZENS can vote, and ONLY ONE VOTE PER PERSON.

We DON'T want one person voting a thousand times in each state. We DON'T want elections decided by copy machines.

Jeez! You have the brains of frozen yogurt.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

There's no denying that suppression is the goal now.

This National Review writer points out that voters "got us into this mess." Logically, he should advocate doing away with voting altogether, but they want to keep the illusion of democracy, I guess.

I will leave the calculus of who benefits, and who pays, under an 'elitist' regime, to the reader....

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-fewer-voters/


PS: Historical note: the phrase 'Fewer, but Better,' which indeed is used by the National Review writer, originates in a famous essay penned by Vladimir Lenin in the early days of the Soviet Union.

Undoubtedly the Reich-Wing considers themselves the better few. Doing their best to head us towards the "Them's that got the gold make the rules" version of The Golden Rule.

[Reason10]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Undoubtedly the Reich-Wing considers themselves the better few. Doing their best to head us towards the "Them's that got the gold make the rules" version of The Golden Rule.

The Reich is YOUR side of the aisle.

The better few in the minds of most of America is the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN WHO GETS ONE FUCKKING LEGALLY REGISTERED VOTE, REGARDLESS OF HIS IDEOLOGY.

Reich Marshalls who illegally elected Pedophile Joe used copy machines.

[Rajoo]

^^How did you qualify as an English teacher when you cannot spell one of the most common four letter words in the English language used in the entire world?

I will bet that your students can spell this word correctly!

[Reason10]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

^^How did you qualify as an English teacher when you cannot spell one of the most common four letter words in the English language used in the entire world?

I will bet that your students can spell this word correctly!

Is this a thread about some idiot misinterpreting the National Review, or about some idiot discovering a typo?

Are you REALLY this stupid? Or are your kids playing on the computer. Or are you just a kid playing on the computer and trying to pretend you're a grown up.